I can't wait until lud posts his comment on this thread............juaaaaaaaaaa

1/30/2015 5:43:58 PM

Your thoughts ~~mature ppl only | Page 2

clarencecSouth Yorkshire United Kingdom60, joined Oct. 2008

.

Quote from nursecutie32:

Or if you don’t believe in God, that he does exist?

As an atheist, I'd be interested and wonder what God is like in his own words - like is he the megalomaniacal freak with the anger management issues from the Hebrew Bible, or does he resurrect people from the dead and judge their performance in their Earthly lives with a view to tormenting them for eternity or annihilating them, like in the NT. All that seems highly unlikely. I suppose there'd be a certain sinking feeling that reason and rationality aren't all they're cracked up to be.

I'm just saying that knowing God exists or doesn't should change the way you behave toward others in this world... I would hope, that if he came down and verbally and visually exposed his existence to everyone everywhere and asked us to again follow his law that most people would instead of burning for an eternity.

Don't you think it would be pretty stupid to condemn yourself to burn forever instead of keeping to the commandments and doing good works? All the while avoiding excesses into the Deadly sins?

if i were to change my behavior it would only be for the worse. i treat everyone and all living things with courtesy and respect. as for changing simply because a god would condemn me to burn for eternity if i did not follow his rules? again nothing would change. f**k any god that would treat others like that. still, i think i'm safe as gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomenon cannot be known by the human minds.

explain your logic and reasoning behind this. If God can't be percieved by our minds we will challenge his nature as God and not recognize him as divine.

i suppose you would never understand my logic as i can't express it any clearer than i did in my post. i might have said that the human body is incapable of flying across the pacific like a bird. the logic would be the same.

It wouldn't change anything either way ~ I would continue to love others. Helping those who need help to the best of my ability.

i see from your profile that you are christian. in that light, i think jesus would be proud of the way i've lived my life. i doubt that his mother was a virgin and that he was the son of some god but i do try to follow his and other's teachings as goes ethical and moral behavior. but mostly i follow what i think is my own common sense. it's me i want most to be proud of me.

I would rather hear about what a person does believe in, then what they don't. It seems unfair that atheists want to scrutinize the beliefs of others, but are often hesitant to talk about what they believe. Forget, the word "god," and all its negative connotations. Would you say you believe in a higher power, or a supreme being? What is it that motivates the passion in you to do good for the sake of others? Is it not a sense of something greater than yourself? I think its a shame people have let christianity hijack a generic name as a specific name for their god. Now, a god has to be congruent to monotheism to be considered god. Heck, they have practically let monotheism steal the title of theism as well. Many people don't think of polytheism, pantheism, and panentheism as a kind theism, but they are. I have noticed that the atheists who believe there are no gods are often selfish and stubborn. While the ones who simply lack belief out of a claim ignorance, seem much more likely to express irrational selfish behavior than their militant atheist brethren. So, I am just curious where you fall, are you an agnostic atheist, or a strong atheist? Based on the reasoning above, I hypothesize that you are the agnostic type that believes in a greater good, whether you call it Life, Nature, or simply a sense of "Goodness." If not, then why would you do good for others? Why would a stranger sacrifice their life for a child about to be hit by car? Do you think a nihilist would make such a sacrifice? Perhaps, the world molded our sense of goodness for the greater good of mankind to enhance cooperation? Doesn't mean the world has purpose, but that our purpose is derived from the world. Our purpose is to be a part of the biosphere, to take part in the Journey of Life. If we can't see past the ego, then our life becomes focused on self-gratification. So, what motivates you to see past your own biases to realize an impartial truth?

that's my thoughts. the lady in her op asked for thoughts, did she not?

we've already covered belief in another thread. it ended when you said you'd ignore my further posts. what happened?

right, read again, I said "probably end up ignoring you." Which I probably will. so you think that is all you need? Do you think Hitler's generals lacked common sense? Do you think whole nations go to war because they lack common sense? It takes much more than common sense, it takes more than the knowing what the right thing might be, it takes the faith that your common sense is accurate and impartial. It takes the integrity and conviction to follow through with it. This is what I believe.

You like to make exaggerated claims, and then get all mad when someone questions you about them. You say you believe nothing, but your message lacks substance because you obviously act as though you think your claims are true. You just seem to refuse to call it belief. You also seem to pretend that you don't have faith in nothing, yet seem confident in your opinion. You realize thats all I mean by the words faith and belief, right? Or, do you agree that words can have multiple meanings? I am just still confused and prefer clarity.

[Edited 1/30/2015 7:18:31 PM ]

1/30/2015 8:02:29 PM

Your thoughts ~~mature ppl only | Page 2

joyusall2Queensland Australia71, joined Oct. 2011

Quote from turkalurk82:

First, I would have to ask you which God are you talking about? I believe in the Supreme Being of Ultimate Objective Reality, of Potentiality being acualized, of impartial Truth, of Existence, of Being itself, do you get the picute, yet? My gid cannot be contained in a personality because, if it were, it would not be superior to the Supreme Reality. Therefore, if any God-like personality exists, I woukd imagine his/her concept of he Supreme Being, would be similar to mine. If this personality claims Authorship of the Bible, then He would have a great deal of explaining to do, and if He/She expects me to submit. However, if any Being wants me to follow their lead, they would not need be a God to get me to recognize the Truth and Wisdom in their Message. If they can convince me with Logic, Wisdom, and their wisdom inspires enough passion for me to act. I will follow with conviction and integrity, even if it means a sacrifice of my life for the greater good of my Existence, even if this would mean that would make some sky god mad enough to punish me, because another human expected me to defy rationality based on a claim of godliness. Which, to me, would seem highly irrational of a perfect benevolent being.

Does this make sense to you?

Btw, you have beautiful smile!

The true Creator cannot be as petty as us-------

He would allow us to Think to grow to understand
and perhaps walk away for a time
to explore to learn ---to get it-----
We know so little---
I know this is a romantic song---but just insert G-d to the song

song---IT don't matter to me---- by David Gates

If a human would do that for another Human
wouldn't a supreme Being do it for us

or does THAT SUPREME Being just want the appearance of DevotionBecause there is No choice--except Hell fire or Eternal Death-------NO FEAR

i suppose you would never understand my logic as i can't express it any clearer than i did in my post. i might have said that the human body is incapable of flying across the pacific like a bird. the logic would be the same.

What does that have to do with the existence of God to the human mind.

What does that have to do with the existence of God to the human mind.

a different question now? you asked my logic. i answered with an analogy. let me try again. as the human mind is incapable of knowing what tomorrow's wall street journal say, would that be the cat's a** or what?, the human mind is likewise incapable of knowing the existence or non existence of god. get it? like you can't know the future, you can't know whether or not god exists?

right, read again, I said "probably end up ignoring you." Which I probably will. so you think that is all you need? Do you think Hitler's generals lacked common sense? Do you think whole nations go to war because they lack common sense? It takes much more than common sense, it takes more than the knowing what the right thing might be, it takes the faith that your common sense is accurate and impartial. It takes the integrity and conviction to follow through with it. This is what I believe.

You like to make exaggerated claims, and then get all mad when someone questions you about them. You say you believe nothing, but your message lacks substance because you obviously act as though you think your claims are true. You just seem to refuse to call it belief. You also seem to pretend that you don't have faith in nothing, yet seem confident in your opinion. You realize thats all I mean by the words faith and belief, right? Or, do you agree that words can have multiple meanings? I am just still confused and prefer clarity.

indeed, you do seem confused. the clarity you seek has been covered in my posts. read them don't read them. understand them, don't understand and stay confused. i really couldn't give a f**k less.

what does Lud have to do with anything? I'm just saying it seems unfair how quick atheists are to scrutinize, but unwilling to defend the logic behind what they themselves believe. I posted a thread defeating strong atheism with a paragraph. Not one strong atheist wanted to defend their position. I was genuinely interested in the questions that I asked you, but you couldn't answer them. That is a common theme among strong atheists, they expect you to respond to ever irrational jab, but are quick to avoid genuine questions asked about their beliefs or in an effort to clarify the intended meaning of their message. You claim you do the right thing, but this is how you treat people who ask you about your beliefs? That doesn't seem very nice, and supports my opinion about strong atheists being self-centered, stubborn, and lacking empathy. So, if you don't care, then that's alright. It actually supports my assumptions about strong atheists, so I am fine with that.

1/30/2015 9:21:20 PM

Your thoughts ~~mature ppl only | Page 2

YasureoktooSeattle, WA63, joined Dec. 2014

Quote from turkalurk82:

hey duchessa:

I would rather hear about what a person does believe in, then what they don't.
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Quote from Duchessa

The problem is that lud always says the same... so, I could care less about what you "rather hear".

I wonder what Christians would do if it was proven that Christianity was copied from earlier religions and Jesus was just a great man, but not the son of God

They would make up nonsense to dispute the fact ..... just like their efforts to repute evolution and insist that their creation story is sound. Christians don't need facts and evidence ..... they just need good fiction writers.

Obviously ..... there are no "Arguments against Strong/Militant Atheism" ..... otherwise someone would have responded to your thread.

Peace

yup, that sounds like the kind of logic that can be expected from a irrational militant atheist. If an argument is not logical, there is no need to counter it with any reasonable rebuttal? No, that didn't support my point about how atheists want to avoid scrutiny, and I'm not being sarcastic at all!

For the life of me ..... I cannot understand why people seem to need a "god", "supreme being" or some other explanation to account for how they treat their fellow human beings.

Peace

i found no problems at all creating my moral and ethical compass all on my own by simply applying common sense. having been born in the south my early years were filled for the most part with the teachings of my church, public schools, and parents. i cannot recall one adult i met through my teens who was not highly racist and being brought up to respect my elders i paid attention. as a result i became a young, bigoted racist myself. when i began studying physics, biology and other natural sciences i began to question genesis. as i began to associate more and more with people of all colors i began to question further all that i'd been taught growing up. by the time i returned from vietnam seeing that we all bleed the same color red i no longer had a racist or religious bone in my body.

i had to start all over defining my own moral and ethical compass using mostly my common sense and today i consider myself a much better behaved person than the youngun i once was. because i came up with my own rules of behavior i find it much easier to adapt to knew situations i had not thought of before than many religious people i know. because they've relied more on their religious teachings, god's law if you will, i see that many are not always adept at adjusting to moral and ethical delimas not previously covered in the various scriptures and teachings.

obviously i don't know the religions of the people who have f**ked me in the past but i do know many of the bastards who've done me wrong and not one is atheist or agnostic. my experience of course, not a claim about those who do wrong or those who do good. just my experience.

Since you commented on my post about him...So, please, don't even try your shenanigans with me

because you mentioned waiting to hear his dribble? have you read any of my posts about the vileness of the Bible? Did you neglect to realize I am not Christian, nor do I conceive of god as a person with a mind? So quick to assume. So quick to judge. I thought I saw the closed-mindedness in you, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Which, is why I engaged you in conversation, giving you a chance to clarify your position. So, can I assume you are a strong atheist? An atheist with no sense of agnosticism? Do you feel certain that all god concepts are pure fantasy? Or, is it possible to reasonably believe in something bigger than yourself? Could some kind of superior being exist, whether you believe in it or not?

Jrbogie, my point about needing more than common sense, is that you also need the passion of empathy, and the integrity to stick to your convictions about doing the right thing for the sense of the greater good. You may not want to attach any religious label on this sense of a greater good. You may not want to call it a superior being, but I believe that this passion is what motivates us to consistently do the right thing. Telling everyone in the world that what they believe can't possibly exist would be a claim of incredulity. Saying that you don't have sufficient reason to warrant a "belief" in any of the many gods, but recognizing that there is room for it to be possible is a rational position and implies that a person is considering the opposing position. That's what I mean about empathy. Putting yourself in the shoes of others. Just doesn't seem like the strong atheists ever try to do that. I think its a shame we can't understand each other because we both claim agnosticism. I just make a distinction with our definitions of belief in the context of an agnostic, that you don't seem to acknowledge or are unwilling to clarify your thoughts on because you feel you gave it a sufficient effort already.

i found no problems at all creating my moral and ethical compass all on my own by simply applying common sense. having been born in the south my early years were filled for the most part with the teachings of my church, public schools, and parents. i cannot recall one adult i met through my teens who was not highly racist and being brought up to respect my elders i paid attention. as a result i became a young, bigoted racist myself. when i began studying physics, biology and other natural sciences i began to question genesis. as i began to associate more and more with people of all colors i began to question further all that i'd been taught growing up. by the time i returned from vietnam seeing that we all bleed the same color red i no longer had a racist or religious bone in my body.

i had to start all over defining my own moral and ethical compass using mostly my common sense and today i consider myself a much better behaved person than the youngun i once was. because i came up with my own rules of behavior i find it much easier to adapt to knew situations i had not thought of before than many religious people i know. because they've relied more on their religious teachings, god's law if you will, i see that many are not always adept at adjusting to moral and ethical delimas not previously covered in the various scriptures and teachings.

obviously i don't know the religions of the people who have f**ked me in the past but i do know many of the bastards who've done me wrong and not one is atheist or agnostic. my experience of course, not a claim about those who do wrong or those who do good. just my experience.

Good post JR ..... I have had similar experiences (but I was never racist or bigoted).

because you mentioned waiting to hear his dribble? have you read any of my posts about the vileness of the Bible? Did you neglect to realize I am not Christian, nor do I conceive of god as a person with a mind? So quick to assume. So quick to judge. I thought I saw the closed-mindedness in you, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Which, is why I engaged you in conversation, giving you a chance to clarify your position. So, can I assume you are a strong atheist? An atheist with no sense of agnosticism? Do you feel certain that all god concepts are pure fantasy? Or, is it possible to reasonably believe in something bigger than yourself? Could some kind of superior being exist, whether you believe in it or not?

Jrbogie, my point about needing more than common sense, is that you also need the passion of empathy, and the integrity to stick to your convictions about doing the right thing for the sense of the greater good. You may not want to attach any religious label on this sense of a greater good. You may not want to call it a superior being, but I believe that this passion is what motivates us to consistently do the right thing. Telling everyone in the world that what they believe can't possibly exist would be a claim of incredulity. Saying that you don't have sufficient reason to warrant a "belief" in any of the many gods, but recognizing that there is room for it to be possible is a rational position and implies that a person is considering the opposing position. That's what I mean about empathy. Putting yourself in the shoes of others. Just doesn't seem like the strong atheists ever try to do that. I think its a shame we can't understand each other because we both claim agnosticism. I just make a distinction with our definitions of belief in the context of an agnostic, that you don't seem to acknowledge or are unwilling to clarify your thoughts on because you feel you gave it a sufficient effort already.

it is a shame that we both don't understand each other but i don't see me as not understanding you. i understand everything you've said. if i don't understand anything it's not understanding how i might be more clear. frankly i see you as an antagonist that is more interested in argument than simply an exchange of viewpoints.

empathy is part of my being as is integrity and sticking by my convictions so obviously they play a major role in how i apply common sense when it comes to morals and ethics. you may call it a superior being but i sure as hell wouldn't. i call it simply ME, a person superior to nobody, applying MY common sense as I see it. i've never told anybody, much less everybody in the world, that what they believe can't possibly exist. all i've ever done here is express my thoughts that the human mind is incapable of knowing the existence of gods, etc,. once again you are replacing your word for mine and the running with a false premise; the very definition of the straw man fallacy. if everybody in the world thinks a human mind is capable of a feat that i don't think it's capable of that's simply a difference in viewpoints. i'm telling nobody anything other than how i see things. that you or anybody else doesn't agree with my viewpoint is just plain though shit. that you see it as incredulity won't change my viewpoint in the least any more than my feeling the incredulity that the president was elected twice will change who's sleeping in the white house.

actually, i don't like the term 'agnostic.' i haven't found a pigeon hole that i might fit. i use agnostic for no other reason than that MOST people with whom i discuss religion can relate to the the term's meaning as i relate to it. you don't seem to fit into the MOST people of which i speak which is again simply a difference in viewpoints. if i were to pigeon hole myself i'd group me as a humanist, but i have problems with that too, who really don't give gods, the afterlife, etc., much thought at all. i would never waste time, for instance, trying to prove agnosticism. humanism isn't about not being able to know, more so i see it as common sense applied to forming our moral and ethical standards as opposed to being taught to follow church, scripture and other religious teaching. humanists likewise are more apt to look at the sciences for answers as to how we all came to be, everything came to be, as we haven't found scripture, etc., to be a plausible source for answering those and other questions.

once again i've done my best to express my thinking as best i could. i consider myself well read, well spoken and though i'm loathe to spend the minimal energy it takes to lift my pinky over to the shift key to capitalize and rarely bother to proof read for spelling, punctuation and other such bullshit that doesn't much affect my clarity in most people's eyes as i post here, i likewise consider myself well written. understand my posts or don't. most here don't seem to have the problem.

What would you change if you were told with 100% certainty that God does not exist? Or if you don’t believe in God, that he does exist?

( if you feel compelled not to answer the question directly then don't answer at all ~ replying with the emoji shrugging shoulders , replying " I don't know " or " I don't care " means no need to reply at all - thanks in advance )

Both happen all the time.
Most people who make the assertion, either way, have 100% certainly, in their POV.
So I would say "no difference", to the question as worded.

But much depends upon your definition of "God".

I do not believe it is possible to have 100% certainty that "God" does not exist (for any perception of "God", or "gods", for that matter).

Now if "God" (or a number of "gods") appeared, and declared/demonstrated exactly what "he", (or they) are, and how it affects the "human condition", it could definitely make a difference, if the reality differed greatly from my personal world view.

i understand everything you've said. How do you know? I thought you believe nothing question everything Is it possible you have misunderstood? if i don't understand anything it's not understanding how i might be more clear. by simply answerimg the questions asked of you? Frankly i see you as an antagonist that is more interested in argument than simply an exchange of viewpoints. Perhaps, you are projecting? Didn't this conversation start when you criticized my compliment of openmindedness of another member because you implied a "believer“ could not be open-minded. Then, after we gave up on it, you criticized my educational background out of context without even realize I was making the same point you thought you were making when with your criticism. Also, So you see me as an antagonist? Does seeing imply believing or knowing I am an antagonist?

empathy is part of my being as is integrity and sticking by my convictions so obviously they play a major role in how i apply common sense when it comes to morals and ethics.
So, you have convictions but not beliefs? Believe nothing/question everything but your convictions? Also, I thought "all one needs is common sense," so you do agree one needs empathy and integrity? I am glad you have changed your mind about only needing common sense.you may call it a superior being but i sure as hell wouldn't. i call it simply ME, a person superior to nobody, applying MY common sense as I see it.So, your ego reigns supreme? You apply common sense as you see fit, without respect to any universal rules of inference? Then how do you know your sense(subjective perception) is common(universal)? i've never told anybody, much less everybody in the world, that what they believe can't possibly exist.never said you did, I was merely clarifying a distinction between 2 positions, strong and weak atheism, obviously you are the latter. all i've ever done here is express my thoughts that the human mind is incapable of knowing the existence of gods, etc,. once again you are replacing your word for mine and the running with a false premise; the very definition of the straw man fallacy. if everybody in the world thinks a human mind is capable of a feat that i don't think it's capable of that's simply a difference in viewpoints. i'm telling nobody anything other than how i see things. that you or anybody else doesn't agree with my viewpoint is just plain though shit. that you see it as incredulity won't change my viewpoint in the least any more than my feeling the incredulity that the president was elected twice will change who's sleeping in the white house.
You are very passionate about this "feeling of rightness." You don't have beliefs, but you have a way of seeing things and if anyone doesn't agree with it tough shit? Is this how you apply empathy and common sense?

actually, i don't like the term 'agnostic.' i haven't found a pigeon hole that i might fit. i use agnostic for no other reason than that MOST people with whom i discuss religion can relate to the the term's meaning as i relate to it. you don't seem to fit into the MOST people of which i speak which is again simply a difference in viewpoints. if i were to pigeon hole myself i'd group me as a humanist, but i have problems with that too, who really don't give gods, the afterlife, etc., much thought at all. i would never waste time, for instance, trying to prove agnosticism.but, you will waste your time throwing jabs criticizing the way I complimented a believer for her open minded position humanism isn't about not being able to know, more so i see it as common sense applied to forming our moral and ethical standards as opposed to being taught to follow church, scripture and other religious teaching. humanists likewise are more apt to look at the sciences for answers as to how we all came to be, everything came to be, as we haven't found scripture, etc., to be a plausible source for answering those and other questions.

once again i've done my best to express my thinking as best i could. i consider myself well read, well spoken and though i'm loathe to spend the minimal energy it takes to lift my pinky over to the shift key to capitalize and rarely bother to proof read for spelling, punctuation and other such bullshit that doesn't much affect my clarity in most people's eyes as i post here, i likewise consider myself well written. understand my posts or don't. most here don't seem to have the problem. good, maybe someone else who understands you can chime in when I ask you for clarification. Again, how do you know that you are being clearly understood in most people's eyes? You seem confident in your ability to "see" through the eyes of most people. Does this vision of truth equate knowledge or a belief? I thought you believe nothing/question everything?You claim faith in nothing, yet speak of "the way you see things" with the same conviction as beliefs. You seem to have faith in your assumptions…

I asked for some clarity on the distinction you make between belief and knowledge. I am trying to understand the difference between "seeing" it is true and "believing" it is true? You claim you have explained it already, and see no reason to waste time repeating, but wouldn't it have been easier to just answer the questions?

I asked for some clarity on the distinction you make between belief and knowledge. I am trying to understand the difference between "seeing" it is true and "believing" it is true? You claim you have explained it already, and see no reason to waste time repeating, but wouldn't it have been easier to just answer the questions?

don't recall using the word 'true' in any of my posts. i'll leave this back and forth with you trying to understand. take care.

don't recall using the word 'true' in any of my posts. i'll leave this back and forth with you trying to understand. take care.

wow dude, really? Do you really believe(I'm sorry, not believe, do you really "see" or whatever you call it when you act as though something is true) that I am antagonizing rather than attempting to understand what you mean?

feel free to help us out sail. If he is being clear to you, maybe you can structure it in a way I understand. Does it really sound as though he believes nothing in the sense that I am using the word?

be·lief
b?'lef/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

so, when he says he believes nothing, but yet he has "convictions," what does he mean?

con·vic·tion
k?n'vikSH(?)n/
noun
1.
a formal declaration that someone is guilty of a criminal offense, made by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.
"she had a previous conviction for a similar offense"
synonyms: declaration of guilt, sentence, judgment
"his conviction for murder"
antonyms: acquittal
2.
a firmly held belief or opinion.

As you can see, jrbogie's "common sense" is logically inconsistent.

I can just move on now, because I believe I have proven my case to any reasonable person.

Nothing to do with faith ..... everything to do with my personal evaluation of your posts to this forum.

Peace

then, make a connection? Use my dialog to state your case. I can be seen as antagonizing to my opposition, but where is the support for the claim that my intention is to antagonize rather than to understand and communicate?

So, you have no faith in your evaluations? So, you spew out random opinions with no conviction in believing the bullshit that dribbles out?

You guys are all being defensive over your little anti-God parade and I understand that, however I do believe your all full of shit really. No one is stupid enough to voluntarilly choose to go to hell when you could avoid it, I dont believe any of you guys are that flipping stupid.

You're the one bulling people with your fire and brimstone talk. You're trying to get people to agree with your view by saying they will burn in hell if they don't.

says the guy who believes in, but doesn't understand the Bible. You're assuming its all correct and not been skewed by man to control men.

In your previous post you state " I love God "

Based on this post you seem to indicate that you believe the bible is not all correct and has been skewed to some extent.

Seems you're privy to some truth.

Who is God?

What in the bible is correct and what in the bible is not truth? How do you know which is which?

2/4/2015 11:02:03 AM

Your thoughts ~~mature ppl only | Page 2

clarencecSouth Yorkshire United Kingdom60, joined Oct. 2008

I think the Bible is wrong that God/s, angels and the supernatural exists, but right at times in some of the moral and ethical principles expressed. Some bits have no doubt been skewed from what the original authors intended. The Hebrew Bible was continuously revised and redacted until about 400 BCE. And Christian texts were changed by copying errors and amendments made for theological reasons. There are more textual variants than there are words in the NT. Six of of Paul's letters are believed to pseudoepigraphal - meaning forged.